[barmar]

 jillybean, on 2020-July-03, 21:05, said:

So, it's been a while. Playing in a ACBL game tonight, against a precision pair who alerted/explained 1♠ 3 card suit as '9-14' and did not alert subsequent bids.
Of course I find this out when I lead against 3nt and choose a mild comment about male bovine excrement , the director then removes me from the tournament, citing zero tolerance. Have the alert rules changed or are they simply ignored?

Violations of the alert rules is not an excuse for using profanity, and ZT is still in effect.

[Zelandakh]

 barmar, on 2020-July-06, 11:27, said:

Violations of the alert rules is not an excuse for using profanity, and ZT is still in effect.

Nor is a ZT violation a reason for the TD to ignore the original complaint though is it? Which clearly is the case here as the pair continue to alert in the same sloppy way. Indeed, having the TD take no action against them but penalising the opp is probably complete validation for them that they are doing everything correctly. In this way a TD can quickly make the problem worse.

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2020-July-06, 10:16, said:

I am pushing for more compliance (and stronger enforcement) with CC requirements locally (especially as Alerting in the ACBL is going to change tremendously RSN, and many things, in particular, aggressive openers, that are currently HU&U Alertable will no longer be Alertable or Pre-Alertable). As far as I'm concerned, a mandate from Management that for the next year after we go back to RL tournaments that failure to have your CC in sight during play triggers the same immediate no-tolerance 1st warning and 2nd 1/4 board penalty for cell phone use, TDs, you will enforce this in all districts - will solve the "attitude" that CCs are optional, despite the daily notices in the Bulletins and...

But oh, the whining, especially on That Other Site (except for Debbie R., of course!) And Management won't do it, because as always, the players want *everybody else* to follow the rules, but how dare you require *me* to do this?

But the management has to be behind it too, BBO seems to have lost enthusiasm about disclosure and the WBF apparently does not care what happens online.
BBO does have a rudimental CC mechanism, but it does not trigger alert-explanations and there is no way that a TD can impose a specific CC or propogate it except by peer to peer distribution between individuals.
Not that f2f was much better. No idea about ACBL, but my federation tried and failed to make CCs truly obligatory many years ago, since then it has been tacitly accepted that they are optional at lower levels of competition.